|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 6, 2015 0:31:47 GMT
I think it's quite interesting to see that some of the people who have jumped to Anthony's defence then condoned all kinds of emotionally and physically abusive behaviour. - The presumption of innocence is bedrock to justice. You do not want to live in a jurisdiction where the burden of proof is on you.
- Even a guilty man deserves a competent defense, even if his actions do not.
- I don't think that Mr. Carver's actions in response to Annie's misbehavior rise to the level of abuse. Have people forgotten that punishment is supposed to be unpleasant?
- Many of his actions likely have the intent of isolating Annie from presumed bad influences.
- The alternatives, such as expulsion, could be very much worse.
- As to his past actions, we do not know why Mr. Carver did what he did.
- We don't even know what Mr. Carver did.
It is a fact that child abusers do things, such as isolating their victims, that look superficially like what Mr. Carver is doing here, or like perfectly acceptable forms of discipline and punishment. The reason for this is that those methods work, and have been commonly used by parents and teachers for centuries. Because these actions are now being taken against someone we like does not make them abuse--until it is shown that Mr. Carver is doing these to abusive ends, rather than to correct Annie's bad behavior.
I'm amused to note that people are invoking item one--presumption of innocence, plus a failure to inquire as to motive--on Annie's behalf, while throwing a noose over a tree limb and building a bonfire under it for her Father.
I've thrown a caution flag over the mob's treatment of Carver père, but now I must assist the prosecution of Carver fille. Annie's Father has indeed pursued an extensive investigation into her schoolwork, and has presented strong evidence to her for cheating, even plagiarism. She immediately confessed to the crime, which I think is admirable of her, and speaks to her fundamental good character, and feelings of guilt over her actions, and her treatment of her friend Kat and others.
In this case, we are looking at a parent's confrontation with his child over an obvious and admitted misdeed. I think there is no question over Annie's guilt, or over her motive, in the sense that she did things in order to cheat, to get grades without bothering to do the work. Case closed.
He has assessed punishment, apparently with the Headmaster's approval, and pronounced sentence. (Or rather, as I write, is in the midst of sentencing.)
This had to happen first, before anything else they do, in order to shock Annie badly enough that she would understand the depth of her guilt, honestly answer questions about it, and honestly offer amends.
I believe that Mr. Carver understands that what he is doing may well estrange his daughter even further, and has made that sacrifice because he believes that a rigorous moral sense is more important to Annie, and to her safety, than her immediate liking for him. I expect that his sternness is due in no small part to having to confront her over this, rather than with unmitigated pride and joy.
I hope that at some point, these two will have a long conversation that will explain things to Annie (and us). I hope her love and respect for him is, in the long term, unshaken.
===
I despise the idea that "reconciliation" between them might not be desirable. As if any outside authority should make that decision without a full understanding of the situation and inarguable evidence presented before a court with full due process. Actively interfering with such a reconciliation because outside parties, even those with legal authority, simply do not like the way a parent is raising his child is tyranny, flat out tyranny. You want to break up a family, there'd better be cigarette burns, bruised and torn privates, or other unmistakeable markers of flagrant abuse.
Such markers have not been revealed to us. Nothing in Annie's behavior indicates clinical depression, fear of or hatred for her father, or other behaviors not typical for bright children in Annie's age group. Low self esteem least of all; Eglamore has accused her of acting as if she owned the place. Might she resent her Father's apparent abandonment? Sure. Has it left scars? Wouldn't surprise me. Should the Court or some civil authority forbid Anthony authority over, even contact with, his daughter because she's experiencing guilt and angst? Beg pardon, but there's a reason we keep buckets of tar and bags of feathers in the shed.
===
I am strongly in mind of an episode of the American crime show Blue Bloods, where Police Commissioner Reagan (Tom Selleck) finds that an old friend of his, an officer in the Evidence Room, has tampered with evidence concerning the murder of Reagan's eldest son (also a police officer).
He goes to the friend's house, is happily greeted by the man, his wife and children, as he is also a friend of the family, and takes him to a nearby park bench.
There he presents a cold summary of what he suspects the officer has done, and presents two alternatives: Confess, right now; and tell me who ordered my son's murder. You resign, effective immediately. Your pension is whatever you collected in bribes. The alternative is that I arrest you on the spot, and believe me, I have more than enough evidence against you to charge you as an accessory to my son's murder.
Nothing soft. No padding. No regrets for what Reagan must do to an old friend. Just: I believe you have been betraying your oath and duties for many years. Confess, help me catch my son's killer, and I won't drag you through formal PUBLIC proceedings, ruin your family, and put you in prison for a long time.
The ex-officer makes an instant, total capitulation. If he offers apology, Reagan has no time for it now.
What makes the tactic work is because, at heart, he is a good and decent man who has done good and honorable work for most of his career. But he took a little step over the line, just this once, no big deal, and then found that he couldn't step back, or even wanted to, really.
That's what Antimony's father is doing to her, except she's young enough that she can recover from her sin if she confesses and makes amends.
She capitulates first, then there can be a long father-daughter talk. Unlike Reagan's friend, an adult, a sworn officer, nearing retirement, Annie is a child. She has achieved much, but has disgraced her achievements and her honor. She's going to need help redeeming herself, and she deserves it. I hope her Father gives her the help she needs.
But first and foremost, she must confess and accept her sentence.
I've said it before, but I'll repeat: this isn't about cheating, or about Annie's grades, or what she's learned from her schoolwork.
It's about Annie's character and honor.
That is what justifies everything we know of that her Father has done in response to her cheating.
What he's done while he's been absent from her is another matter, but we do not know enough to judge him on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 6, 2015 0:44:30 GMT
I honestly don't think Anthony has the authority to take away the forest's chosen medium. People are forgetting that Annie is the Court's medium. Thanks for getting that right. But also, she isn't the medium yet; she's only a trainee. That said: A child's Father doesn't have the authority to keep her away from what he has good reason to believe are malign influences? Really? A Father doesn't have the authority to overrule a school's judgement on allowing his child to go into a dangerous situation? Really? Coyote can COMMAND that a minor child be his Medium, and the Court, and the child's Father, are powerless to keep that from happening? Really? And people are upset with the Father for displeasing Coyote? Really?That works both ways, you know. Coyote is willing to negotiate because the Court is not without power, either. We're supposed to support a being that regards Antimony, an adolescent girl, as his plaything? Over her Father, who has taken upon himself the onus of confronting Annie over an uncontested charge of cheating? Take a deep breath, people. Count to ten. Think about what we really know, which isn't all that much. Tom is taking us for a ride, as any good storyteller should. He's pulled the wool over our eyes, and tricked us into thinking that Coyote is Annie's good and honest friend with nothing but her best interests at heart, while her Father is a cold, capricious abuser who wants to cage or muzzle the happy innocent forest doggy she's been playing with. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Apr 6, 2015 1:00:21 GMT
The only reason Annie woke up happy was because of what Zimmy did, namely undoing what her father apparently had. That you simply do not know. There was no moment where she hurt. That you simply do not know. Which was my whole point. We don't know what was going on (though there are some pretty strong hints) so you can't claim that whole thing didn't hurt her, or was something she wouldn't want. But something that put her into a coma and apparently had some kind of effect on her inner elemental energy possibly hurt her, or could have. Which is why it shouldn't have been done in the first place without her knowing. Having been in army, I know a lot about hurting without leaving marks. However, here she feels fine. You do not feel fine after getting soapsock or a punch in the kidneys. She has not been punched anywhere, and inventing such analogies is ridiculous. Would like to reiterate that we don't know that she is fine, would also reiterate that in short: just because someone looks fine doesn't mean they are. I would figure that would be obvious. Some of the most vile child abuse imaginable leaves no visible scar. And just because abuse doesn't leave a scar does not mean it's not abuse. And even if it wasn't physical, it could still be called abusive. Doctor anaesthetising a patient for the time of the operation does not count as hurting. Drugging someone against their will is in some places defined as assault. In Washington state RCW 9A.36.021 provides that someone who "administers to or causes to be taken by another, poison or any other destructive or noxious substance" is guilty of Assault in the Second Degree. Hell, battery generally does not require any intent to harm the victim. A person need only have an intent to contact or cause contact with an individual. If someone acts in a criminally reckless or negligent manner that results in such contact, (which experimental bone laser surgery may very well be) it may constitute an assault That again you do not know. If it is revealed afterwards that there were reasons that would have undermined the operation if he had come to talk about it (or that he could not come to mention it), makes such complaints vanish completely. He was able to ask Donny for medical supplies with a code. If he was being watched he could have just used that same code to communicate with Antimony about it or ask her permission. That would be the only reason I could think of that would come close to making his secretiveness justifiable, and even that wouldn't give him an out. But as we've heard for a hundred times, nothing can justify it, which is the absolutely unethical position. See my post from earlier thread and try to answer it. I challenged you to come up with an ethical theory to justify your position: no one has taken the challenge. Answer what? Can you repeat yourself? I see nothing that justifies drugging someone against their will and performing an operation on them without their knowledge or against their will. Especially in this situation, where you don't even have 'their lives were in danger' as an excuse. I don't see how that is unethical. The only circumstance in which that would be reasonable is if the person was unconscious and dying, and that was decidedly not the case with Annie. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 6, 2015 1:24:46 GMT
We have no reason to think she couldn't have passed those classes. We don't even have specific reason to think that she didn't study enough to pass most of them, possibly even all of them. Because she was sure of passing them and getting decent grades if she copied Kat's work. Why take the chance of failing, when cheating is so easy and accepted, and she doesn't really care about the material? Oh, we have a plenty of reason: the reason you state above, the evidence of her constant practice of cheating and underwhelming homework that would not have passed anything, and then the lack of knowledge. Except we have no evidence of the underwhelming homework or lack of knowledge. (The school... might.) We only have evidence that Annie took the lazy-and-certain way out. Which in MANY contexts (but not this one) is the correct thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Apr 6, 2015 4:21:08 GMT
People are forgetting that Annie is the Court's medium. Thanks for getting that right. But also, she isn't the medium yet; she's only a trainee. She isn't the court's medium, and she isn't a trainee. She's officially the forest's medium. Are we reading the same webcomic, here? |
|
|
|
Post by csj on Apr 6, 2015 6:01:53 GMT
She is technically the forest medium, but she admits she is still 'learning' how to carry out that duty, her position is dismissed by the Court and it's blatantly obvious that she relies almost completely on Coyote insofar as representing the Forest is concerned. The role of Medium wasn't seen as critical for over a decade, so it is probably considered partly ceremonial, not unlike Jimmy-Jim's fancy costume.
It is entirely reasonable to suggest that 14 is a young age at which to become the diplomatic envoy of a place that you didn't grow up in and arguably, don't really belong. It is also reasonable to suggest she still isn't fully cognizant of the predicament it places her in, and the extent to which her actions are being influenced as a result. She has been treated as a tool by both the Court and the Forest.
Is being the medium a good thing? There is no easy answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 6, 2015 6:21:22 GMT
People are forgetting that Annie is the Court's medium. Thanks for getting that right. But also, she isn't the medium yet; she's only a trainee. She isn't the court's medium, and she isn't a trainee. She's officially the forest's medium. Are we reading the same webcomic, here? She is the Forest's medium; I think I meant to type "is not the Court's medium", but my fingers disobeyed my orders. Trust me, there will be slammed desk drawers in their immediate future. "Trainee" is perhaps too strong, but I could swear that I've read, during a recent archive crawl, Annie herself saying to someone that she's not a full-fledged Medium. I'll see if I can find it again. csj's post above is a good summary of my understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by csj on Apr 6, 2015 6:23:46 GMT
In other old news, apparently this thread started talking about social workers at some point? Oh man, now we're really off the rails, heh. Anthony may be a soul whose intentions are good, though we are indeed supposed to see his method as unnecessarily cruel and difficult to justify based on what we have been shown. My scepticism owes a lot to Tom's reputation of being a troll. It's all being lined up, and we've been led on so consistently. If it is exactly as it appears, it'd be a greater shock than a twist. :3 |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 6, 2015 6:32:11 GMT
Anthony may be a soul whose intentions are good, though we are indeed supposed to see his method as unnecessarily cruel and difficult to justify based on what we have been shown. My scepticism owes a lot to Tom's reputation of being a troll. It's all being lined up, and we've been led on so consistently. If it is exactly as it appears, it'd be a greater shock than a twist. :3 nod-nod to this as well. "Based on what we have been shown" is key. One twist is the revelation of Annie's cheating, which should have cued us that Anthony's actions are not as arbitrary as they seem. |
|
|
|
Post by machival on Apr 6, 2015 6:32:45 GMT
She isn't the court's medium, and she isn't a trainee. She's officially the forest's medium. Are we reading the same webcomic, here? She is the Forest's medium; I think I meant to type "is not the Court's medium", but my fingers disobeyed my orders. Trust me, there will be slammed desk drawers in their immediate future. "Trainee" is perhaps too strong, but I could swear that I've read, during a recent archive crawl, Annie herself saying to someone that she's not a full-fledged Medium. I'll see if I can find it again. Annie says something like that in Chapter 39: www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1057However, that's before smitty is appointed the court medium, so Annie's line about not being the medium yet isn't relevant to her current situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 6, 2015 7:06:57 GMT
I could swear that I've read, during a recent archive crawl, Annie herself saying to someone that she's not a full-fledged Medium. I'll see if I can find it again. Annie says something like that in Chapter 39: www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1057However, that's before smitty is appointed the court medium, so Annie's line about not being the medium yet isn't relevant to her current situation. I believe you're right, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Vilthuril on Apr 6, 2015 7:15:19 GMT
As it turns out, there are actually laws whereby the guardian of a minor has the final say on matters such as their mental and physical well-being. Parental decisions about healthcare are made all the time and often, without relying or requesting the consent of the patient. As already discussed by numerous people in this thread, the above statement is simply, absolutely false both in law and practice when the minor in question is above a certain age - where I live 12 years old, and someone else noted 14 years old where they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 6, 2015 16:00:20 GMT
A lose end has been tickling me which I've finally teased out: "You will be rooming on your own nearby."
I'm wondering if he truly means "on her own", or if he means she will be living with him. I'm betting that Mr. Carver is the kind of man who does not use words carelessly.
Still, if he does mean that she will in fact be living with her Father, that will give them the opportunity to be a family again.
Or, of course, it could mean that when she's not in class, she will have his hand constantly on the scruff of her neck. If that's what he's trying to do, and does not let up when she demonstrates that she is indeed trying mend her ways, then that would be moving into abuse territory.
===
Oh, and this little piece of lint: "extra study time". If that means "more time to work on the assigned class work," which she has evidently had trouble with, good. If it means, "I'll see to it that you are too busy with make work to have any kind of outside life," not so good, especially if she finds that no amount of good work can please him, or earn some time off.
We'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Apr 6, 2015 17:17:25 GMT
We lack information, and we should not make judgments of type "regardless of what other information will be given what he has done is x". That sounds reasonable to me. But in turn, I find myself disillusioned with how everyone who rejects the opinion of "most of the [public]" nonetheless proceeds to pronounce categorical imperatives in everybody's name, while raising their own assumptions above such self-imposed principles. Even a Cartesian prescription of mandatory doubt can be fit into the given blank; simply let "x" be "potentially justified by the outcome", implying that any "good" result proves that the process is also "good" (further implying pre-established harmony and all that), which now constitutes a mindset that defines the thinking circles of humanity. In time, it becomes a weapon, and then it all begins again. I don't know if I can avoid it for myself. Edit: I want to make clear that I like your speculation, particularly how you highlight that no reader knows about Anthony's motives and possible dangers he was facing when he presumably left Annie behind, or when he presumably performed some "surgery" on Annie in Chapter 38, or whether these bones even indicate any tampering with Annie on Anthony's part (can it be proven at face value that Annie was the target of those bonelasers, rather than the origin?). By the way, if you want people to challenge any morality that employs "no harm felt, no foul" as a sufficient criterion by itself, I do intend to take you up on it, if with an extreme example: Do you think it's possible to rape a person who remains fast asleep, and thus oblivious, throughout the act? If yes, you must concede the point; if not, I will have thrown you to the wolves. Or can you rise above that dichotomy? That would be interesting. Firstly, the challenge was not that one. It was not for them to oppose some moral position that I hold, but for them to define a consistent ethical theoretical position for their condemning of Anthony's actions regardless of what are all the aspects not yet revealed, in a situation where almost nothing has yet been revealed. This was in an earlier thread, a different question. So, I do not want anybody to challenge me upon that question you form there, it is not a position I hold. I start to sound pedant, but I ask you to pay attention to the original wording "did Anthony hurt her physically?" The "no harm felt" point had not to do with the possibility of a foul, but the possibility of being hurt. Secondly, the question you pose makes me think you have been reading Gardner, or not. Because his question is a little bit different: it is not whether there can be a rape without experience of being raped (it is pretty obvious "can there be a harmless rape?" and "where is the wrongness of rape situated at?", or something to that effect, can't check the book now. It is not really a question of whether it was a rape, but whether that act that was a rape was really wrong. I have no time to go to that, it is a different question than the one treated here and I will only say that rising above the dichotomies is what I do.  P.S. However, if you wanted to raise this point to argue for a foul of another kind, that requires no physical harm done, you have to very first consider the different nature of acts like "rape" and "medical operation", the former being a foul by definition, and the latter only if something is added to it that makes it a foul. Lack of expressed consent, even expressed lack of consent, is not a sufficient condition to make a medical operation either morally or legally wrong. If someone wants to argue it is, I challenge him/her to argue that position with a coherent ethical and legal theory. P.P.S.I don't think there is evidence yet about the target and origin of the "bone lasers". Nor what they did, although, one thing they certainly appeared to do was that they held the fire elemental down, as "behind the bars". That would suggest that the fire elemental was the target, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Hamilton on Apr 6, 2015 21:09:08 GMT
That said: A child's Father doesn't have the authority to keep her away from what he has good reason to believe are malign influences? Really? A Father doesn't have the authority to overrule a school's judgement on allowing his child to go into a dangerous situation? Really? This isn't exactly a normal school in a normal situation. It isn't a matter of who has the authority, but who has the power. Coyote can COMMAND that a minor child be his Medium, and the Court, and the child's Father, are powerless to keep that from happening? Really? Maybe not powerless, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Court thought capitulating to Coyote in this area would be better than the alternative. And people are upset with the Father for displeasing Coyote? Really?Really? Who are these people who are upset with Anthony for displeasing Coyote? That works both ways, you know. Coyote is willing to negotiate because the Court is not without power, either. When and how are they willing to assert that power, though? Depending on how much Coyote wants Annie to be the forest's medium, it may or may or may not be worth the risk. We're supposed to support a being that regards Antimony, an adolescent girl, as his plaything? Over her Father, who has taken upon himself the onus of confronting Annie over an uncontested charge of cheating? Who suggested that we support Coyote over Anthony? You refer to Anthony taking "upon himself the onus of confronting Annie over an uncontested charge of cheating" as if it's some sign of a noble father doing his duty. It's more like, "A father who disappeared for two years pops into his daughter's life again with no warning, explanation, or apology, rudely singles hers her out in front of the class, coldly rebuffs her concerns about his hand, and drastically punishes her for cheating in school during his absence in a manner than separates her from her friends and what is important to her." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 23:33:26 GMT
It was not for them to oppose some moral position that I hold, but for them to define a consistent ethical theoretical position for their condemning of Anthony's actions regardless of what are all the aspects not yet revealed, in a situation where almost nothing has yet been revealed. Anyone who succeeds in such a challenge must thereby oppose your current moral position. Consistency is not the issue as I see it; here is an example code of ethics that qualifies: 1. It is impossible for a child to grow up to its full potential when it lacks the physical presence of their biological parents; 2. Under no circumstances can the possible benefits of leaving one's daughter to her own devices outweigh the disadvantages. 3. If someone does wrong to a child, I must condemn that person in public; otherwise either I will not develop my own sense of ethics properly, or others won't develop theirs. 4. Works of fiction mirror my usual environment to the point, except where they evidently do not, and I read them to identify with the characters I like, as well as to develop my own sense of ethics, or others'. These assumptions need not be sensible, and that is where discussion begins; but condemning Anthony is consistent with this system, although certain problems arise once you have to define terms such as "developing properly" within a system that is developing into something presently unknown. I understand. But if those two possibilities are not connected, I do not see what there is to argue about. No, I haven't. I have read a book in which someone mishears "Hourglass Lake" for "Our Glass Lake", and later allegedly tries to make such a situation as I described happen by feeding his desired Dolores some sleeping pills. The irony of appropriating Dolores for a rather abstracted discussion of ethics isn't lost on me. I remain a terrible moralist: whatever act is proven to be rape must then also be wrong; but I find it sensible to explore what exactly is wrong with it. If the book rejects that rape is wrong because of the pain that the victim feels, since objectification is the root of such pain, and sensations of bliss and pain can be deceptive, then I think it corresponds well to my more naive assumptions. In Germany, you almost always require express consent from the patient before performing any kind of medical operation; otherwise you can indeed be pronounced guilty for inflicting bodily harm (which does not require the victim to feel pain) according to Section 223 StGB. Exceptions are made, of course, when treatment is needed immediately to save an unconscious person's life, for example. Neither consent nor lack thereof can be inferred from silence under German civil law, by the way. Yes, but what role did "getting your fight back" play in Zimmy's apparent therapy? Did Annie lock herself down, perhaps, by "suppressing her character"? (I hope not, because that sounds too much like "sublimation" and "archetypes" and such half-baked theories for my taste; but fire-elemental psychology might work differently, and I must concede the following: if the Ether indeed combines individual imagination into generally-perceptible creatures that, once born, reinforce their own natures by acting in accordance with their origins, Etheric creatures can be considered stereotypical, if only epistemically.) |
|
|
|
Post by CoyoteReborn on Apr 6, 2015 23:39:42 GMT
Who suggests that we support Coyote over Anthony? |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 7, 2015 0:40:50 GMT
1. It is impossible for a child to grow up to its full potential when it lacks the physical presence of their biological parents; This I have to disagree with merely because the detail of the parents. Some kids can grow up fine with adoptive parents or family members that are qualified to raise them should the parent(s) be unable to. The problem in Annie's case is Anthony not arranging for Annie to have anyone that she could turn to for emotional support/companionship. As I suggested in the thread for page 1497, he could have arranged for say Donald to keep in contact with her in the first place in case she needed someone to talk to. |
|
quark
Full Member
Posts: 137
|
Post by quark on Apr 7, 2015 1:06:51 GMT
1. It is impossible for a child to grow up to its full potential when it lacks the physical presence of their biological parents; This I have to disagree with merely because the detail of the parents. Some kids can grow up fine with adoptive parents or family members that are qualified to raise them should the parent(s) be unable to. The problem in Annie's case is Anthony not arranging for Annie to have anyone that she could turn to for emotional support/companionship. As I suggested in the thread for page 1497, he could have arranged for say Donald to keep in contact with her in the first place in case she needed someone to talk to. As far as I got it, @korba mostly constructed a strawman against zimmyzims argument. (I'm kind of having difficulties following that discussion) And I agree - he provided for her in the sense that her physical well-being was satisfied and the Court was supposed to take care of her, but Anja was the one who pushed her daughter to befriend Annie so she wouldn't be alone, Jones took it upon her to care for her and help her grow up. (Eglamore's 'well, don't let them catch you break the rules' and the Donlan's mostly non-interference didn't help that much). Rey was the one who tried to be a father figure and stand by her side, but he's not that well suited because his hatred toward Anthony, and his immature behaviour. What unites them is that they tried, while Anthony stood by, watched (we know he did - how else would he be that well-informed) and did nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Apr 7, 2015 1:11:13 GMT
What unites them is that they tried, while Anthony stood by, watched (we know he did - how else would he be that well-informed) and did nothing. Heh. "She lived, and he did nothing." |
|
|
|
Post by machival on Apr 7, 2015 1:19:27 GMT
This I have to disagree with merely because the detail of the parents. Some kids can grow up fine with adoptive parents or family members that are qualified to raise them should the parent(s) be unable to. The problem in Annie's case is Anthony not arranging for Annie to have anyone that she could turn to for emotional support/companionship. As I suggested in the thread for page 1497, he could have arranged for say Donald to keep in contact with her in the first place in case she needed someone to talk to. As far as I got it, @korba mostly constructed a strawman against zimmyzims argument. (I'm kind of having difficulties following that discussion) And I agree - he provided for her in the sense that her physical well-being was satisfied and the Court was supposed to take care of her, but Anja was the one who pushed her daughter to befriend Annie so she wouldn't be alone, Jones took it upon her to care for her and help her grow up. (Eglamore's 'well, don't let them catch you break the rules' and the Donlan's mostly non-interference didn't help that much). Rey was the one who tried to be a father figure and stand by her side, but he's not that well suited because his hatred toward Anthony, and his immature behaviour. What unites them is that they tried, while Anthony stood by, watched (we know he did - how else would he be that well-informed) and did nothing. Don't Forget Ysengrin. He's being having father-daughter conversations with antimony for a while now. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Apr 7, 2015 8:01:08 GMT
It was not for them to oppose some moral position that I hold, but for them to define a consistent ethical theoretical position for their condemning of Anthony's actions regardless of what are all the aspects not yet revealed, in a situation where almost nothing has yet been revealed. Anyone who succeeds in such a challenge must thereby oppose your current moral position. Consistency is not the issue as I see it; here is an example code of ethics that qualifies: 1. It is impossible for a child to grow up to its full potential when it lacks the physical presence of their biological parents; 2. Under no circumstances can the possible benefits of leaving one's daughter to her own devices outweigh the disadvantages. 3. If someone does wrong to a child, I must condemn that person in public; otherwise either I will not develop my own sense of ethics properly, or others won't develop theirs. 4. Works of fiction mirror my usual environment to the point, except where they evidently do not, and I read them to identify with the characters I like, as well as to develop my own sense of ethics, or others'. These assumptions need not be sensible, and that is where discussion begins; but condemning Anthony is consistent with this system, although certain problems arise once you have to define terms such as "developing properly" within a system that is developing into something presently unknown. I understand. But if those two possibilities are not connected, I do not see what there is to argue about. Firstly: as I point out in the posts where I ask for the ethical theory, system with the presumption 2 is untenable as soon as we have morally relevant cases other than parent's presence to his/her children. And there consistency soon becomes an issue. An ethical theory with integrity cannot abstract particular acts from the whole and treat them as separate systems. If somebody wants to defend a moral position in which no other things morally relevant than parent's presence in his/her children's lives, then let them defend that, but then they should speak that out loud as it is very untenable position. Just for one example: you have to choose between 1) leaving your daughter to a private school for a couple of years in order to act to save her from a future threat, 2) staying with you daughter despite it meaning that after those two years she will be raped and tortured to death for the circumstance you could have prevented had you left her to that school and been absent for those two years. Any person with the moral code you created would choose the alternative 2. Let them defend that position, but then, I only ask them to do it openly and consistently. I'd also point out that the condemnation of Anthony's acts in this chapter when he is in the presence of Annie, which is what was discussed, is in a clear contradiction with the presumption 1, as now he is acting to take care of her better development. Secondly, if we can say that there is no evidence that she was physically hurt, then we have to drop those charges, so to say. So, it is very relevant even if we did not subscribe to "no harm felt, no foul". I would yet add that the harm principle, according to which, exactly, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others," does not exclude harm in forms other than physical pain. It does not follow that question of physical pain is irrelevant for the question on foul, but it does follow from this principle that is very universally accepted in western world that without experience of harm there is no harm. The individual him/herself must him/herself have the experience of suffering harm from someone else's action for that action to be prohibited, and that is just the first condition (of course, we can always inform him/her further so that (s)he might realise that she is harmed). Oh but the German Civil Law not only assumes consent when life is danger (as you admit), but also accepts medical operations on people without their consent and even against their will. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Hamilton on Apr 7, 2015 10:07:13 GMT
Okay, I've realized a major thing that's bugging me about this whole conversation about Anthony and Annie's cheating.
Antimony's Sin: Copying homework off a friend. It's a crappy thing to do, but honestly, lots of students do it. She's also very young. Academic dishonesty in a een is a problem, but in terms of immoral behavior, it's on the lower end of the spectrum.
Anthony's Sin: Disappearing for two years from his daughter's life with no explanation.
Antimony's cheating is relatively mundane and fixable. The person most harmed by her behavior is herself. Anthony's abandonment is unusual and extreme. The person most harmed by his behavior is the daughter who he is responsible for.
Imagine a romantic relationship. Person A has a secret affair for years. Person B flirts with someone inappropriately while drinking. Person A scolds Person B. Sure, Person A is TECHNICALLY in the right because what Person B did was wrong...but they've essentially lost the right to complain. Maybe they'll gain that right again eventually, after proving themselves worthy of trust, but that takes time.
Anthony is like the adulterer in that analogy. He has failed in his parental responsibilities to such an extent that he doesn't get to play the disappointed parent enacting harsh discipline. He's the one that should be jumping through hoops to prove that he's deserving of trust.
Heck, and even if we are going on the assumption that him coming down hard on Annie for cheating is a good thing, how easily could this have backfired? Tons of kids act out when they have poor relationships with their parents. For example, a child who is terrified of a parent's harsh punishments might not go to them when they really need help because suffering alone with a serious issue is better than admitting that disobeyed a rule. If Annie didn't trust Anthony, or even hated him after his disappearance, she might react to this crackdown with rebellion.
That's still a possibility. Being so harsh, cold, and unfeeling could backfire in a big way. Annie is complying now, but how long will she tolerate it? If Anthony doesn't treat her with kindness, love, and support, what is her incentive to obey him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 10:59:09 GMT
As far as I got it, @korba mostly constructed a strawman against zimmyzims argument. Yes, but just because it is a strawman doesn't mean that it can't contribute to a discussion, because: The problem in Annie's case is Anthony not arranging for Annie to have anyone that she could turn to for emotional support/companionship. As I suggested in the thread for page 1497, he could have arranged for say Donald to keep in contact with her in the first place in case she needed someone to talk to. And I agree - he provided for her in the sense that her physical well-being was satisfied and the Court was supposed to take care of her, but Anja was the one who pushed her daughter to befriend Annie so she wouldn't be alone, Jones took it upon her to care for her and help her grow up. (Eglamore's 'well, don't let them catch you break the rules' and the Donlan's mostly non-interference didn't help that much). Rey was the one who tried to be a father figure and stand by her side, but he's not that well suited because his hatred toward Anthony, and his immature behaviour. That's right, when Anja was notified that Antimony would join her daughter's classes, Anja encouraged Kat to befriend her. And if she cried over Antimony's transfer notice, then she must have known that it had been arranged for her to join the Court as soon as Surma had died. Anthony might have considered that the Donlans would take good care of Annie, but didn't want Antimony to feel forced into accepting their support... or perhaps he didn't want to formalize that he was, indeed, unable to cope with being a father. Or both. The point is, if he had imagined that others (Jones too, maybe) would prove better role-models or support for his daughter than he would, it explains why his "disappointment" with Antimony leads to such a harsh reaction: he is disappointed with himself, because he believes he made the wrong decision in excluding himself from her life, by which Antimony has been "corrupted". For instance, he might think that Reynardine, whose character most people notoriously misunderstand, has been an especially terrible influence and encouraged Annie's cheating, for example; this is another tragic misjudgment. -- The point is, if one accepts such a version of events, Anthony believes himself to be righting his prior wrongs presently, when he has actually made good choices, if not necessarily the best ones, until now. I wonder how much Antimony missed her father, anyway? On the one hand, the cherry-tree scene has her only say "I miss my Mommy" and during Microsat 5 she thinks, "Tony, Tony... it almost makes him sound like a person, not just "Father"." (p. 1015), but on the other hand, then she thinks of him wrapping her foot in bandages during judo (?) training (p. 1018; in the next chapter, Antimony performed some kind of shoulder-throw on Zimmy after she insulted her dad, which makes me think it was judo, but I have next to no knowledge of most martial arts). We still don't know much about what Anthony has done at all. Edit: That's still a possibility. Being so harsh, cold, and unfeeling could backfire in a big way. Annie is complying now, but how long will she tolerate it? If Anthony doesn't treat her with kindness, love, and support, what is her incentive to obey him? Well, why does Renard adore Surma and her daughter still, even now that he knows that Surma never loved him? ( Maria Callas sings you the answer I would want to give here. Irrelevant quip: I like how she loses track of the lyrics several times and just spins them a new one. "Il ne se tait, mais il me plaît" in particular might be more adorable than the original.) |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Hamilton on Apr 7, 2015 11:34:12 GMT
Well, why does Renard adore Surma and her daughter still, even now that he knows that Surma never loved him? ( Maria Callas sings you the answer I would want to give here. Irrelevant quip: I like how she loses track of the lyrics several times and just spins them a new one. "Il ne se tait, mais il me plaît" in particular might be more adorable than the original.) Ah, but this sort of proves my point: Surma pretended to love Renard in order to manipulate him into the Court. If Surma hadn't intentionally done such a thing, would his feelings have developed in the first place? Also, Renard learned the truth years later. Right now, he only as fond memories. What would have happened if the truth had come out while she was still alive, and they still had some sort of relationship? Besides, even if some people remain loyal to people they love who hurt them badly, it isn't a guarantee. It isn't something you should rely on happening. It also isn't necessarily healthy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 11:50:17 GMT
Firstly: as I point out in the posts where I ask for the ethical theory, system with the presumption 2 is untenable as soon as we have morally relevant cases other than parent's presence to his/her children. Yes, but I think that here it becomes a matter of reasoning, because the self-coherent system is suddenly assailed by such strange foes as "divergent models of life" and "empirical evidence". I know how it fits. (And so on.) "Who do you think you are? Kant?"I believe the moral code of the people you were arguing against will be more sophisticated and account for more exceptions to norm no. 2 instead of "under no circumstances"; the principal difference is that these others draw the line of no exception somewhere else, and that they assume the information given in the comic suffices to put Anthony beyond that line already. This is what you were arguing against, and this is what it's possible to argue against. Not from the view of pure and crystalline formal logic: "it is impossible for A to be B, if not C" does not imply "if C, then A must always be B", and in fact, not even "if C, then it is possible for A to be B", because it is possible for A to never be B regardless of C. Okay, this is pedantry. Technically, now we are talking about penal law (what do you mean I'm a pedant, cough cough); but honestly there is no functional difference in this case. The point is that a patient can file a malpractice suit against a doctor for some kind of recompensation, which falls under civil law, but the state can also punish the doctor for "inflicting bodily harm" as per Section 223 StGB, and as soon as the state gets involved as either the accuser or the accused, one does not speak of civil law anymore. I cannot read the first link at all, but the second one describes an extreme situation again: prisoners of the German state trying to kill themselves unless their demands are enforced, in which case the German state of course assumes that it is, no doubt, in the right to end such a threat to its monopoly of power. I think the junta tried to force-feed Aung San Suu Kyi as well when she entered her hunger strikes (I'm not sure). This is just how state representatives behave. ---- Ah, but this sort of proves my point: Surma pretended to love Renard in order to manipulate him into the Court. If Surma hadn't intentionally done such a thing, would his feelings have developed in the first place? No, but I believe that flawed processes may also lead to good results, just not the best ones. And in a work of fiction, such flaws can form an enjoyably intricate pattern that pervades the story. Good question. I think all memories have a knack for growing into fond memories as they intertwine themselves with present sensations of bliss or desire. I agree, because if you can rely on it happening, it isn't special anymore; and then it is not love anymore, but slavery. I'd like you to explain this further. (It's a central and many-shaped question in all of Wedekind's plays, whom I adore.) ---- This is, I believe, the most important exchange of all: No, I do not accept this western-universal principle, on the grounds that there are ways of blocking the sensation of pain, such as medication, which makes me suspect, even if it does not logically follow, that it is also possible for people to imagine harm for themselves where there is no need to do so, but which indeed creates more sensations of pain in the process, continuing such a cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Hamilton on Apr 7, 2015 12:19:47 GMT
I'd like you to explain this further. Abusive relationships. Submitting to unreasonable, controlling, or cruel behavior from a loved one. Trying desperately to please someone that doesn't have your best interests at heart. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 12:34:39 GMT
True, but sometimes I think that unreason, control and cruelty are expressions of love from someone who cannot quite understand love at this moment, and the big question is whether love itself can be the cure for such an illness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Hamilton on Apr 7, 2015 12:58:17 GMT
True, but sometimes I think that unreason, control and cruelty are expressions of love from someone who cannot quite understand love at this moment, and the big question is whether love itself can be the cure for such an illness. Only if the healthy person isn't being destroyed in the process. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 13:07:20 GMT
Who is the healthy person in the Surma/Renard/Antimony constellation, though? The abuser and the murderer do not qualify, I think; but Annie has been deliberately cruel to Renard by telling him that Surma never loved him, because he had the audacity to highlight that she had been exploiting Kat for years by copying her homework. Is she "healthy", then? Is any love possible between any of these people at all?
|
|
